Homosexuality from a Non-Religious perspective

[_truth dancer]

Josh... you wrote:

Do you even dispute that women at one point were much more active in pregnancy

I responded:

Yes I dispute this. Today many women are working and playing right up to the day they deliver.

You wrote:

Sorry, I didn't get this. You dispute this because of how women act today??? That doesn't work in my head right. I am not dicussing women today. We already concluded that women today operate differently than women of yesterday.

I'm saying I have seen no evidence that woman at any time were generally more or less active in/during pregancy than at any other time.

No "we" have not concluded that women today operate differently than women of yesterday. What do you mean? In what ways do you think women operate differently?

You wrote: Yes, but we are also seeing the reprocussions. We unnaturally extend our lifespan through human invention. Alzheimer's Disease is on the rise and is theorized by some as a reality of human beings living far longer than they were designed to. Hey, I am not complaning, but certainly being honest about what we are doing is the most mature method of approach.

Again... humans are nature. We evolve just like every other species, albeit with most likely a different awareness and consciousness. We adapat to survive. There are reasons for reactions and alterations to every for all of life and for every species.

If children survive better with grandparents, life will keep grandparents around. If our species survives better if men and women emotionally bond even in their later years through sex, this tendency will blossom. If our species benefits by having and attending to fewer children per couple, this phenoemon will increase in the human. If our species survives better by having older couples in the community, or adult men and women without children in the community, these tendencies will continue.

Again, life has a way of eliminating in a species that which doesn't support life, or that which is useless. Life seems to not want to waste energy on frivolities. It may take a while nevertheless it seems to be the case.

~dancer~

[_asbestosman]

I hate to take it one step further, but what is another problem with us hijacking nature? ADHD, mental retardation, autism, etc. etc. A lot of the upticks of some of these things is considered by some a sign of our de-evolution. We now protect what nature would have killed off through natural selection. People with some of these disorders would not have survived naturally and would have been removed from the gene-pool, preventing any offspring. But modern medicine now means a lot of these things are protected.

Humans hijacked nature as soon as they started agriculture. Agriculture leads to such problems as pestilence and even famine. It also requires more work than hunter-gatherer societies. The reason humans went for agriculture is because it supports a greater population than hunter-gatherer societies. Also larger cities provided other advantages to humans including developments in mathematics, machines, architecture, etc.

Take another situation. The starving in Africa. Technically nature would have fixed that problem. Why? Starvation would have weeded out the weak and thinned the population, overall reducing the population to a level that would stop the starvation. The starving in Africa is a result of over-breeding. Generations of irresponsible childbearing that is further promoted by all the "feed the children" programs. We simply feed the overpopulated areas, allowing them to make more children and further the problem. We interfere with nature.

If my understanding is correct, starvation, death, and irresponsible childbearing are exactly what happened in earlier society without the "feed the children" programs. "Irresponsible childbearing" is precisely what nature would have people do because most kids died anyhow. Many children didn't survive past the age of five If I recall correctly. In such situations, the only way humans could ensure offspring was to have more children many of which would subsequently die. I would think therefore that the only difference we would make in Africa by refusing to "feed the children" would be that fewer adults would exist and hence produce fewer children. However, the children produced would probably still be just as hungry as the ones today are.

Furthermore it is my understanding that the hunger problems in Africa are caused by governmental corruption instead of a lack of resources to help them. That is to say that if their governments would be more cooperative, we would have plenty of food to feed those children without having to interfere with the reproductive choices of adults.

If homosexual genetics is just that, a chemical resulting from genetics, then I wonder how long homosexuality would last in nature?

Probably as long as things such as infertility exist in the wild. If I'm not mistaken, infertility often has a genetic component. Furthermore it is my understanding that reducing homosexuality to DNA is incorrect. Many suspect that pre-natal hormones from the mother may play a very significant role. On top of that one should remember that human sexuality would seem to depend on a number of factors meaning that the dichotomy between nature and nurture may be a false one. Even so, I know of nobody who consciously chooses their sexual preference. It is also my understanding that it is rarely possible to reverse preference at least currently. I think ultimately many homosexuals would favor the ability to reverse their preference, but only if we could leave such as optional instead of mandatory and only if it wouldn't be used as political leverage to treat them differently than heterosexual couples many of which are infertile or consciously choose not to have children (DINKs).

[_moksha]

Liberace has risen!!!

[_jskains]

I'm saying I have seen no evidence that woman at any time were generally more or less active in/during pregancy than at any other time.

I guess I don't even know how to approach you here then. Even without any research, it is well known even in the last few years (cited in many news reports) that women are holding off on having kids to older ages and having far less than they used to. Other than intentionally ignoring these facts, I don't know how you could NOT see evidence of this.

No "we" have not concluded that women today operate differently than women of yesterday. What do you mean? In what ways do you think women operate differently?

I am honestly asking, have you ever done any research on women's history? You think a woman of the 20's is the same as a women in the 50's and the 70's then the 90's and even today? You see no differences at all? Alright... *shrug*

Again... humans are nature. We evolve just like every other species, albeit with most likely a different awareness and consciousness. We adapat to survive. There are reasons for reactions and alterations to every for all of life and for every species.

NO other species has "evolved" to what we are today. We are an oddity in "nature". We actually are the only species to actively flow against it.

JMS

[_jskains]

Liberace has risen!!!

Could a moderator remove this post please?

Thanks,
JMS

[_asbestosman]

You may also wish to consider the blog feature of this board. You can then moderate replies all you like without waiting for a moderator. You can also restrict who can reply or view your blog in the first place.

[_jskains]

Humans hijacked nature as soon as they started agriculture. Agriculture leads to such problems as pestilence and even famine. It also requires more work than hunter-gatherer societies. The reason humans went for agriculture is because it supports a greater population than hunter-gatherer societies. Also larger cities provided other advantages to humans including developments in mathematics, machines, architecture, etc.

Yes I know.. But our hijacking of nature doesn't completely eliminate the need to look at our natural state. There might be benefits to paying attention to it.

If my understanding is correct, starvation, death, and irresponsible childbearing are exactly what happened in earlier society without the "feed the children" programs. "Irresponsible childbearing" is precisely what nature would have people do because most kids died anyhow. Many children didn't survive past the age of five If I recall correctly. In such situations, the only way humans could ensure offspring was to have more children many of which would subsequently die. I would think therefore that the only difference we would make in Africa by refusing to "feed the children" would be that fewer adults would exist and hence produce fewer children. However, the children produced would probably still be just as hungry as the ones today are.

Furthermore it is my understanding that the hunger problems in Africa are caused by governmental corruption instead of a lack of resources to help them. That is to say that if their governments would be more cooperative, we would have plenty of food to feed those children without having to interfere with the reproductive choices of adults.[/quote]

Your looking too deep again. Government... Ok.... No different than a forest fire, a plague, an agressive outside species.. All environmental factors that contribute to the death of a food source. Nature normally responds... We unnaturally prevent it with technology.

Probably as long as things such as infertility exist in the wild. If I'm not mistaken, infertility often has a genetic component. Furthermore it is my understanding that reducing homosexuality to DNA is incorrect. Many suspect that pre-natal hormones from the mother may play a very significant role. On top of that one should remember that human sexuality would seem to depend on a number of factors meaning that the dichotomy between nature and nurture may be a false one. Even so, I know of nobody who consciously chooses their sexual preference. It is also my understanding that it is rarely possible to reverse preference at least currently. I think ultimately many homosexuals would favor the ability to reverse their preference, but only if we could leave such as optional instead of mandatory and only if it wouldn't be used as political leverage to treat them differently than heterosexual couples many of which are infertile or consciously choose not to have children (DINKs).

We don't know exactly what causes homosexuality, yes. But that doesn't uncouple the fact that it is a break in the way it is SUPPOSED to work.

JMS

[_jskains]

You may also wish to consider the blog feature of this board. You can then moderate replies all you like without waiting for a moderator. You can also restrict who can reply or view your blog in the first place.

I do not want to restrict any alternative ideas.. Just silliness. I'd like to keep this discussion serious.

JMS

[_asbestosman]

Yes I know.. But our hijacking of nature doesn't completely eliminate the need to look at our natural state. There might be benefits to paying attention to it.

Certainly there are benefits in obtaining knowledge from nature. We gain insight into how to better attack problems we face. However, the idea that natural is best is likely false. Nature doesn't give a lick about humans. Nature kills most species over time. Those that survive only do so in part because they were better suited. Much of it is still luck.

The idea that nature lives in harmony with itself is a myth. I recently read Challenging Nature wherein the author explains just how much of jungle the jungle truly is. Plants struggle against other plants for precious sunlight.

We don't know exactly what causes homosexuality, yes. But that doesn't uncouple the fact that it is a break in the way it is SUPPOSED to work.

A break in how it's supposed to work in nature? I'm not so sure that's a fact. I have offered speculation on why homosexual couples may be beneficial to society. Nature may actually have selected for a certain percentage to exist. Creatures that do not reproduce are very useful among ants and bees. Why not in humans too? Ants and bees are social insects. Humans are social animals. Humans certainly are quite different from ants and bees, but the case may be made that perhaps homosexuality and even infertility to some limited extent would be beneficial to the survival of communities.

Furthermore I'm not so sure how much it matters about how it is supposed to work. It may be that I'm supposed to grow facial hair, but I tend to shave daily. Maybe women are supposed to have hairy legs, but I kind of like it when they don't. Again the knowledge about why things are a particular way in nature is useful. It would seem, however, to have little to do with public policy.

As an aside, Alan Turing (famous pioneer in computer theory) was gay. He probably committed suicide over the way law at the time treated him for it.

[_truth dancer]

I wrote: I'm saying I have seen no evidence that woman at any time were generally more or less active in/during pregancy than at any other time.

Josh responded:I guess I don't even know how to approach you here then. Even without any research, it is well known even in the last few years (cited in many news reports) that women are holding off on having kids to older ages and having far less than they used to. Other than intentionally ignoring these facts, I don't know how you could NOT see evidence of this.

I'm responding to your question about women being active in pregnancy. Are you now discussing how frequently women become pregnant? Or what is the average age of women having children?

Yes, of course women are having fewer children today than a hundred years ago, because children are surviving. And, it seems that the fewer children a woman has (up to two), (in modern societies), the better their chance of survival. This is a good example of adaptation.

And, if older women take better care of children, life will favor older mothers.

I wrote:

No "we" have not concluded that women today operate differently than women of yesterday. What do you mean? In what ways do you think women operate differently?

Josh responded:

I am honestly asking, have you ever done any research on women's history? You think a woman of the 20's is the same as a women in the 50's and the 70's then the 90's and even today? You see no differences at all? Alright... *shrug*

I have read dozens and dozens of books and research on this topic which is why I am disagreeing with your theories. :-)

I ASKED YOU WHAT YOU MEAN. I am unclear how you think women "operate differently than women of yesterday."

I have truly NO idea what you are talking about. How do women "operate differently"? What women? Are you speaking about American women? Women of the world? Mothers? What?


I wrote:

Again... humans are nature. We evolve just like every other species, albeit with most likely a different awareness and consciousness. We adapat to survive. There are reasons for reactions and alterations to every for all of life and for every species.

Josh responded:

NO other species has "evolved" to what we are today. We are an oddity in "nature". We actually are the only species to actively flow against it.

Yes, we are different than other species. An oddity in nature? We are different than other species but the Earth is filled with "oddities". (Ever checked out some of the deep water species)?

I'm not sure we "actively flow against nature." This doesn't make sense to me. We are nature... we may not live in harmony with the health of the planet, other species, and even the rest of humankind, and we certainly engage in behavior that is maladaptive and destructive but we can't pretend we are something other than what we are.... part of all of life.
~dancer~